WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Jannie Blazek Case No. D2009-1172 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Delta Air Lines, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America represented by Ladas & Parry of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

The Respondent is Jannie Blazek of Czech Republic. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with T, Inc. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4, 2009. On September 4, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to T, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 18, 2009, T, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 8, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 9, 2009.

The Center appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brow QC as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the famous international airline that was founded in the United States of America in 1929. It is one of the world's largest commercial airlines and provides ticketing and other facilities for its extensive range of transport services.

The Complainant is the registered owner of many trademarks for DELTA including the following:

(a) Trademark registered number 0654915 for DELTA, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 19, 1957;

(b) Community Trademark registered number 000132290 for DELTA registered with the Office For Harmonization in the Internal Market on June 18, 1998;

(c) Trademark registered number 175722 for DELTA registered with the trademark authority of the Czech Republic on March 6, 1992;

(collectively referred to as “the DELTA trademarks”).

Additionally, the Complainant is the registrant of the domain name that it uses to provide services on the Internet for its customers.

The Respondent registered the domain name on July 23, 2009. It presently resolves to a website parking page featuring generic links to third party websites promoting the sale of airline tickets and other services. Formerly, the website claimed to be an affiliate of the Complainant and purported to sell tickets for the Complainant's scheduled flights. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the domain name should no longer be registered with the Respondent, but that it should be transferred to the Complainant.

It contends that this should be done because, within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Policy, the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and subsequently used in bad faith. The Complainant maintains that it can prove all three of these requirements and that the appropriate remedy is to transfer the domain name to the Complainant.

In support of its case on the first of these three elements, the Complainant relies on the registered DELTA trademarks to which reference has already been made. It then says that the domain name is confusingly similar to the DELTA trademarks as the spelling of that word in the domain name is the same as the spelling of the same word in the trademarks with the addition of a hyphen and the word “tickets”, which is an essential part of the Complainant's business, thus suggesting that the domain name relates to the sale of tickets on the Complainant's flights.

The Complainant then contends, to establish the second element, that the Respondent has no rights or interests in the domain name because the facts show an obvious intention by the Respondent to benefit from the reputation of the well-known DELTA mark and to use it in fraudulent way, namely by claiming to be an affiliate of the Complainant authorized to sell tickets on the Complainant's flights and by holding itself out as being authorized to take the credit card details and other personal information of potential customers. Moreover, the Complainant contends that it has never authorized the Respondent to perform any of those roles or to use its trademark in a domain name or anywhere else.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that this so because the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the DELTA trademark without any permission from the Complainant, falsely claimed to be authorized to sell tickets on the Complainant's flights and to solicit passwords and credit card details from potential passengers and attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the public by engaging in phishing, pharming and other fraudulent activities to the prejudice of the Internet public and the Complainant. The Complainant contends that these activities of the Respondent constitute bad faith registration and use within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) (iv) of the Policy and within the general meaning of bad faith. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In that regard, the Panel also notes that the fact that a respondent has not made a formal submission does not avoid the necessity of examining the issues and of doing so in the light of the evidence. The onus remains on the complainant to make out its case and past WIPO UDRP panels have said many times that despite the absence of a submission from a respondent, a complainant must nevertheless show that all three elements of the Policy have been made out before any order can be made to transfer a domain name.

However, as the Panel will illustrate later, it is possible to draw inferences from the evidence that has been submitted and in some cases from silence. Indeed, paragraph 14 of the Rules incorporates both of those notions into the procedures of the Panel.

The Panel therefore turns to discuss the various issues that arise for decision on the facts as they are known.

For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:

(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It is to be noted that paragraph 4 of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove that each of the three elements is present. The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The P